The minutes for the September 27, 2000, meeting were accepted and approved with the following corrections (M/S/P — Moore/McGee):

Page 4, Item B (Consider Draft Proposal from CBAC re: College’s Budget Allocations Model), fourth paragraph, first sentence was explained and changed as follows: "The composition of CBAC was noted as having more administrators than faculty; there are six faculty and three administrators." In comparison to the previous composition of CBAC,the new composition of the committee has, proportionately, more administrators than faculty.

Page 4, Item B, last paragraph, seventh sentence should read as indicated by strikethru and Italics: "In addition, the workload will be disproportionate for those division chairs serving on the committee on the DC’s sitting on the committee will be increased."

As directed at the September 20th meeting, Dianne researched the issue regarding contract education and release time. She explained that the District Academic Senate adopted a position paper on contract education, and one of the recommendations was that a Mission College faculty liaison be reassigned with .1 load. The recommendation was approved and implemented, but the release time was never assigned. Marji Knowles was asked to serve as the liaison, but she never received the release time. Marji is currently serving as the Workplace Learning Resource Center Director, at .5 (of a 1.0 load position), an additional .5 position as grants liaison, and the contract ed liaison position without load for a total of a 1.0 load. She came to the Senate to discuss two separate issues: 1) whether or not the Academic Senate wishes to continue with the Contract Ed Advisory Committee, and 2) to advise the Academic Senate that she can no longer continue as the faculty liaison on Contract Ed due to the heavy workload. The question for the Senate to consider is whether or not to pursue the recommendation of release time for a faculty liaison to contract education. Marji has indicated that she spends a fair amount of time in that position. It was agreed, by consensus, that this matter should be placed on a future agenda for further discussion.

It was agreed (M/S/U — Cheung/Grams) that the agenda will be reordered to accommodate guests.

There was no oral communication from the public at today’s meeting.

Mission College Academic Senate Meeting Minutes - October 5, 2000 Page 2

1. Dianne announced that the Senate subcommittee comprised of Senators Bell-Cheung, McGee, and Moore selected the ACCESS Program as the college’s nomination for the Board of Governor’s Exemplary Program Award.

2. Dianne announced that the ASCCC Area B meeting will be held on Friday, October 13, 2000. She will not be able to attend as she will be present at the E&FMP retreat held on the same date.

VI. Administrative Business/Actions/Appointments

A. Curriculum Committee - No report was made at today’s meeting.

B. Staff Recognition - No resolutions were presented.

C. Committee Appointments

a) Hiring Committee for Ass’t. HR Director - A Senator or Senate designee is needed to serve on this committee. It was agreed that a designee will be selected.

b) District Council - Dianne stated that Mission College is entitled to two faculty seats on

the District Council, if the ACE President is a WVC representative. The Senate President

sits on the council and the second seat is vacant. She called for volunteers from among the

Senators, noting that the meetings are held at WVC during the Fall semester and at MC during the Spring semester. The meetings are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month from 2:00 - 4:00 p.m. It was agreed that a call for interested faculty will be sent out from the Senate office.

1. Instructional Technology Committee - Pat reported that the committee will meet next week.

2. Distance Learning Committee - Amy Grams reported that the committee will meet twice a month. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 11, 2000, in

E1-603 from Noon to 1:00 p.m. Many faculty have expressed interest in establishing

Distance Learning classes, and there will be a demonstration of a canned on-line course.

Dianne requested that the committee address the academic issues outlined by the Academic Senate.

3. Staff Development - No report at today’s meeting.

4. Datatel Implementation Committee - See Item VII.C on Page 2.

The Senators adopted the list of goals from one to ten developed at last week’s meeting (M/S/U - Jackins/Grams). Dianne would like the Senators to address these goals in subcommittees, and/or discuss them further to determine how best to accomplish them. This item will be placed on the next agenda.

B. Update on Draft Proposal from CBAC re: College’s Budget Allocation Model

Dianne reported that the Senate’s recommendations discussed at last week’s Senate meeting were brought to CBAC, accepted and incorporated into the model.

C. Consider Recommendations re: Datatel/Colleague Registration System, Wait Lists, and Repeat Policies

Lee Callaway and Sumi Tanabe asked the Senate for direction on a number of issues concerning the implementation of the Datatel/Colleague Software System relative to curriculum. The new system will have one database, allowing for interaction between the two colleges; this has not been the case under the Santa Rosa system. Hence, similar courses will have to be coordinated and the question of prerequisites must be addressed.

Mission College Academic Senate Meeting Minutes - October 5, 2000 Page 3

The first issue to be considered is wait lists. The current system allows a student to add his/her name to a wait list, pay the appropriate fees for a class, and fill a vacancy in a class on a first come-first serve basis. The Colleague process differs; students can be placed on a wait list when the class is closed. They do not, however, pay the fees, nor are they automatically moved from the list into the class when a space becomes available. It would require a full-time monitor to ensure that those on the wait list are registered in the class. The question before the Senate is whether or not to establish a wait list process under Colleague’s limitations. Discussion ensued and an option to increase the class size from 30 to 33, with the assumption that there would be a number of drops, was soundly rejected. The Senators expressed concern that the students on the wait list may be preempted by students registering immediately after the vacancy, or by students who attempt to add on the first day of class. It was explained that a closed class will not be reopened if there are vacancies and that the instructor will receive a first roster and a wait list roster. If there is a vacant spot, the students on the wait list who attend the first class will be added. Hence, it is imperative that faculty take adds into their classes. Another option is to eliminate the wait list and take adds on a first come, first serve basis.

Sumi advised that a mock registration was to take place on November 9th, and it was suggested that the Academic Senate agree to the mock test and include a wait list. Sumi will alert the committee to the Senate’s concerns. The Senators unanimously passed the following motion (M/S/U — Moore/Estrada):

"that the Mission College Academic Senate approves the proposal to proceed with a mock registration of students for at least 1,000 sections, including the use of a wait list, and to delay its final decision on wait lists until a report on the results of the test run is received by the Senate."

The second issue concerns repeatability. The current system records the last grade received for a repeatable course. Dianne advised that research indicates that most California community colleges use the best grade. Under Colleague, choices are available. The system can select the first grade, the last grade, or an average grade. Currently, there is no Board policy that speaks to this issue. In practice, both colleges in the district require that students petition to repeat courses after two failures. Dianne reported that the WVC Academic Senate selected the best grade option to benefit the students. The Senators passed a motion with one abstention to accept the best grade as the final grade ( M/S/P — Estrada/DeMarco). It was agreed that this policy will be stated in the catalog.

The final issue concerns prerequisites. Summer 2001 registration begins April 16th; Fall 2001 registration begins May 7th; Spring 2001 grades and academic history will be converted into Colleague by the end of June. Fall 2000 and prior grades academic history will be converted prior to April 16th. The new system will not be capable of checking repeats and prerequisites prior to June. Several options were reviewed and considered. The first option is to capture as much prerequisite checking as possible. It was noted that, in terms of matriculation and Title 5, the enforcement of prerequisites is essential. Another option is to turn on requisite checking for Fall 2001 after Spring 2001 grades are converted. The impact would be that all students registering and/or modifying their program after Spring 2001 grades are converted will be checked for prerequisites and dropped, if necessary. Another option is to delay registration; this option could result in a loss of enrollment. Sumi explained that others using Colleague without exception have agreed to forgive the semester of transition. Lee noted that the prerequisites will still be listed in the schedule and the instructors can ensure that the prerequisites have been met during the first week of the course. Dianne advised that the WVC Academic Senate insisted that prerequisites be checked any way that they can. The following motion was passed unanimously (M/S/U— Jackins/Hudak):

"that the Mission College Academic Senate agrees to the first option to capture as much prerequisite checking as possible."

Mission College Academic Senate Meeting Minutes - October 5, 2000 Page 4

Sumi advised that all department chairs were requested, through the Curriculum Committee, to meet with their counterparts at West Valley College to equate courses where possible. The MC Math Department met with WVC Math Department, and they were able to clearly demonstrate what courses can be considered as substitutes for each other. Lee noted that these distinctions help to ensure that the colleges provide district students with the same opportunities provided to students transferring in to the district.

As agreed, the order of the agenda was suspended and moved to Item VIII.C to accommodate guests.

Carol Qazi and Phil Pabich presented a report on the current status of the International Students Program at Mission College. Approximately one year ago, President O’Hearn asked for a five year strategic plan focusing on international education programs for Mission College. Dr. Rosalind Raby, Director of the California Colleges for International Education (CCIE), has been hired as a consultant to develop the five year plan. The focus will be on in-bound and out-bound international programs. The Senators received a written report, MC International Education Definitions, prepared by Dr. Raby. Carol emphasized Dr. Raby will not focus on Global Education, but rather on international education.

Currently, Mission College has approximately 200 international students that are enrolled in the International Students program (in-bound) to either study English and/or matriculate into the colleges for their AA degrees. Out-bound programs include study abroad programs that enable resident Mission College students and faculty to study or work abroad. Out-bound opportunities include faculty exchanges and/or participatory roles in study abroad programs, such as the Costa Rica Rain Forest program. A CCIE consortium of other community colleges exists, offering international programs; additional information on the consortium is available from International Students. Efforts are being made to include Mission College and West Valley College into the consortium.

Dr. Raby is interested in obtaining feedback from the faculty, both positive and negative, in order to proceed with the development of a five year plan. Several Senators expressed support for the program and view it as an enriching experience for the students and faculty. The reasons that were cited against expanding the program included the view that community colleges are intended to serve California students, and there are not enough resources to serve those students. It would be inappropriate for an international student to displace home state students and/or under-represented students. Although it is commendable that our international students return to their country with improved skills, it is equally as important that under-represented students have an equal opportunity to improve their lives and that the college has room for them. It was noted that even though this may be a good program, the college has had difficulty meeting the needs of the number of international students currently enrolled at Mission College; services to these students are often lacking and scattered. The Pass the Torch program and the ACCESS program provide some services, but not necessarily what is required. Another issue deals with how to financially assist the current student population that might be interested in a study abroad program but cannot afford to participate. How do we accomplish everything for everyone? Carol explained that there are funding sources available for study abroad programs. The program is seeking a coordinator to address those concerns, and help to make the program accessible to all students. A question was raised as to where the resources will come from for the coordinator and the program. There was a brief discussion on the Thailand project, and it was noted that the IS program is considerably different.

Mission College Academic Senate Meeting Minutes - October 5, 2000 Page 5

Dianne asked for direction, and it was agreed, by consensus, that the program should be pursued through the development of a five year strategic plan, with periodic reports on feedback from the faculty and staff brought back to the Senate for consideration. Dr. Raby can be reached at Fax #(818) 882-9837, or comments can be made to Carol Qazi

The order of agenda was resumed and moved to Item VII.D.

VII. Old Business (Continued)

In response to a request of the Senate, Dianne investigated Article 15.0 (Academics Emeritus Benefits), item #8 on Page 25 of the ACE contract. Article 15, Item 8 reads as follows:

"Retirees desiring employment as associate faculty members after retirement may be granted re-employment preference under the provisions of article 102 if they have received an "Exemplary" evaluation in their last year of full-time assignment prior to retirement."

It was determined during discussion that this is a professional matter and it concerns the Academic Senate. There appears to be no rationale or basis for this article, and it appears to be disrespectful of our faculty. There is nothing on the evaluation form that allows for an "exemplary" evaluation in the first place. Secondly, most faculty are not evaluated during their last year, and, thirdly, it is inappropriate to discriminate against our most senior faculty members, particularly after twenty to thirty years of service.

Dianne asked for direction, and the following motion was passed with one abstention (M/S/U — DeMarco/Jackins). Dianne was directed to forward the motion to ACE:

"that the Mission College Academic Senate exercises its right under AB 1725 to take exception to Article 15, Item 8, as an academic issue, which deals with the evaluation of faculty, and is unenforceable because the opportunity to place a faculty member in exemplary status on the evaluation form does not exist, and evaluation does not occur for most faculty during the final year of full-time employment. Based on those facts, the Mission College Academic Senate respectfully requests that ACE reconsider Article 15, Item 8 as soon as possible and address the issue with the Academic Senates."

This item was postponed to the next meeting.

Dianne reported that the last accreditation report recommended that the college improve its process for planning. In response to the self-study’s recommendation, President O’Hearn reviewed the College Governance and Planning Council (CGAC) structure and purpose, and reorganized CGAC and formed the Governance and Planning Council (GAP). The president’s recommendation was approved by the Academic Senate last year, with the caveat that the reorganization be reviewed after one year. Senators Patton and Toppel served on GAP last spring, and Jane has expressed concern as to the balance of faculty on GAP relative to vocational education and transfer/academic education. Jane feels the committee is highly representative of basic skills and vocational programs and not representative of traditional transfer/academic programs by virtue of the faculty who happen to fill the seats on the committee. Senator Toppel voiced her view that the discussions that

Mission College Academic Senate Meeting Minutes - October 5, 2000 Page 6

take place at GAP are centered on the entire college. It is her belief that faculty can address this concern, particularly since one of the five PFE goals is to increase transfer. Dianne stated that the committee’s membership is intended to represent the entire college community.

The Senators were asked to discuss this matter with their constituents and be prepared to discuss the matter further. Dianne indicated that GAP members serve two year terms. She and Carol Toppel will be completing their terms and new faculty representatives will be appointed by the Academic Senate.

1. Governance and Planning Council Report - The council discussed the Educational and Facilities Master Plan and the direction of the college.

2. Division Chair Council - The council is dealing with the implementation of Datatel.

3. CBAC Report - Dianne reported that the list of programs that were funded has been distributed and should be available from department chairs. A copy of the budget for 2000-2001 was passed around the Senate table and will be available in the Senate Office.

4. Other - No other reports were made at today’s meeting.

1. Letter dated September 27, 2000, from the state Chancellor’s Office re: STRS Board Nomination.

2. Letter dated September 25, 2000, from the state Academic Senate for CCCs calling for nominations of faculty to serve on the CCC Board of Governors.

3. Letter dated September 25, 2000, from the state Chancellor’s Office re: Regulation Revisions- Emergency Waiver of Regulations for Fire Suppression Activities.

4. Letter dated September 25, 2000, from the state Chancellor’s Office re: Regulation Revisions-5. Federal Student Financial Aid Programs: Implementing the "Return:" Provisions of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998.

6. Letter dated September 25, 2000, from the state Chancellor’s Office re: 2000/01 Renewal Application for CalWORKs and TANF Funding.

1. The agenda for the September 27, 2000, District Council meeting.

2. The minutes for the May 4^th and May 11^th meetings of the ACE Executive Council.

3. The summary notes for the September 13^th meeting of GAP.

4. The September 25^th issue of FA NEWS from the Foothill-DeAnza Faculty Association.

5. The September 22, 2000, issue of the DVC FORUM from the Diablo Valley College Faculty Senate.

1. The NISOD Conference will be held in Austin, Texas on May 27-31, 2001.

No future agenda items were added at today’s meeting.

Dianne announced that next week’s meeting is canceled to facilitate the Senators attendance at the E&FMP retreat scheduled for Friday, October 13, 2000. Senators Akers-Martin, DeMarco, Estrada, McGee, and Toppel will join President McKay at the retreat.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. (M/S/U — Hudak/Toppel). These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.